I support this proposal. The development of social services is one of the priority areas for attracting new users. I have two questions:
How funds will be unlocked. Will it be possible to simultaneously unlock it with subsequent withdrawal to the exchange and a fall in the rate?
The conditions for stopping the program are not specified. There are circumstances under which this program will no longer be relevant.
I would also like the DeFi alliance to be the governing body. They must receive financial reports and confirm spending.
Much, much better. I think I mentioned it on Tuesday’s community call. Looks like everyone’s interests have been accounted for, adjustments made. I also know that the standardization communications are going well too. Looks like some serious work went into updating the proposal. I’m personally good with it.
55 Million is a huge amount. I do not agree it should be this high. Coupled with the grant that Defi Alliance got, is there no concern over selling pressure it will bring on EVER? Seem to be handing out tokens like candy.
I would like to see the amount reduced and a discontinuation switch if the project does not seem like its going anywhere (oversight done by a third party). That way the funds can be returned or burnt if we decide to pull the plug. Also financial reports as someone else mentioned is a good idea.
I hear your concerns, but 1 ) DeFi is Defi. We can’t compare apples to oranges. NFT is its own thing. 2) All of the NFT folks are hodlers – PROVEN! This is not the same thing as useless, stupid partnerships from the past. Everyone in the Everscale NFT space mentioned in the proposal are stark advocates and token holders. Not the same thing.
Thank you for your comment, but that’s not quite accurate. QAN are still working on it and I have every confidence they will come through, but I agree that time is ticking. I will personally ask them what’s up.
That said, this is not a fair comparison. QAN and NFT Alliance are like pine trees and grouper fish. They don’t even live in the same environment, albeit QAN does have an NFT initiative as well.
But I appreciate your point and will follow up. But these are 2 completely different things. At least that’s how I see it.
Nope because we get it in msig with major players of Everscale community.
We have strong connection with DeFi Alliance trough Sergey Shashev and any direct spendings will be coordinated, but it’s only 5kk EVER’s of total sum.
I know how much development costs, I know how much time is to support projects, I have a view how much marketing costs. I want to say that 55m for the tasks of the alliance is not much as everyone thinks. Because I’m sure they will go to real affairs, and not in a glass, how everyone fear. I fully support this proposal
Analytics & support are working with QAN to prepare the final report. The smart contract address should provide all the relevant information, since all winnings are recorded daily to the smart contract.
EDITED TO ATT: here’s the root smart contract address:
Все участники альянса являются долгосрочными держателями токенов EVER, основной смысл, заключается в том, чтобы вкладываться своими деньгами в проекты на базе Everscale, работая на сеть в целом, получить разумную компенсацию.
Почти все запрошенные монеты идут в виде 100% match на фиатные инвестиции участников. Не вижу тут рисков для курса EVER, от слова совсем. А вот выгода от этих усилий будет для всей сети.
Respectfully, they are only holders until the day they decide to sell. You can’t just expect people to take your word for it surely. I would still like third party oversight and a off switch should the project not deliver at the very least. I don’t think this is unreasonable at all given the size of the grant which should be reduced in the first place.
I admit that the plan seems to have been more developed than the previous version but still cannot stop thinking 55 million is too much to ask for. Potential token buyers would certainly think there are 55 million tokens that may be ultimately sold in the market.
This signals to a potential group of people that now they are allowed to ask for tens of millions of tokens only if they have some very solid plan. What if a new group of people appears to ask for 20 million tokens with a fancy plan and say it is much lower than the one from the NFT Alliance?
Instead of giving so much, a record-breaking amount of funds to NFT Alliance, if we form a separate fund for NFT Alliance with enough number of different custodians who would evaluate the progress that NFT Alliance will make, at least it makes a more impartial plan?
Correct me if I am wrong, please, but if the above custodians of the multi-sig change their minds at any time later, they can always decide to release the tokens to the market, can’t they? This means if only three of them (out of five) agree on doing that, technically, it can happen.
Another thing I am worried about is that the number of tokens people would ask from now on will significantly increase based on similar logic/structure. We are making an example.
This part got to be specified with some strict conditions.
Please don’t get me wrong. I understand that we need a robust NFT Alliance, and I fully support it! Nevertheless, we should be cautious when it comes to distributing 55 million tokens to a small group of custodians.
Such generous offers push me to stop investing in EVER.
Yes, these products and developments are needed by the project, but not at such a price in a small number of hands.
Restoring NTF SG and holding contests on these solutions would sound better.
Monetize, create your own token, make an initial token sale, The part of the community that considers this offer valuable will test you as it sees fit.
однозначно нет, покажите хотя бы один успешный результат. Как вы собрались развивать целое направление, если не смогли даже один успешный проект реализовать.
вы заявляете что chessNFT скоро будет участвовать в Индии в мероприятии с аудиторией в 850 тысяч человек, привлеките в сеть хотя бы 8К реальных живых активных пользователей с этого мероприятия. И вам все скажут - Да. А когда вы не можете на аирдроп бесплатно раздать 50 призов -то НЕТ.
